ML20036B778
| ML20036B778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1993 |
| From: | Fox J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306020259 | |
| Download: ML20036B778 (6) | |
Text
--
3 GE Nuclear Energy 4a 1
cenew n.w: twwa, a
775 Camr A,wae San Am c4 9572S i
c5 May 26,1993 Docket No. STN 52-001 j
i 3
3 7
.2 4
4 Chet Foslusny, Senior Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate g
Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors E
and License Renewal Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation g
.s
Subject:
Submittal Supporting Accelerated ABWR Review Schedule - Sample Pipe f
Break Analysis Report and Appendix 3L Modification (Replacement)
.s a
b
Dear Chet:
=
Enclosed are replacements to SSAR markups of new Appendix 3L and to the report GE-NE-123-E070-0493 " Sample Anaiysis for the Effect of Postulated Pipe Break ABWR Main
'5 Steam Piping" provided in my May 18,1993 letter.
5 1!
Please provide a copy of this transmittal to Shou Hou.
j Sincerely,
_g
=g
- [
m a
Jack Fox
=
Advanced Reactor Programs j
cc: Maryann Herzog (GE) k Norman Fletcher (DOE) 33 4
iA1=
s
=
Jf%260 d
020016 9,
j
)
g 9306020259 930526 DR ADDCM 05200001 Q
PDR f
e
[L ]
Z s
Le
.I 3M4 PIPE RUPTURE EVALUATION E moment. angular deflection relationships L-A{
built.in end.end DE) for any deflectson for t 3X'4.1 GENERAL APPROACH This equivalent force is j
subtracted from the applied thrust force when There are several analytical approaches that U calculating the net energy.
may be used in analyzing the pipe / pipe whip C
restraint system for the effects of pipe rupture.
See Figures 5 2,5 3 and 5-4 for the models This procedure defines two acceptable approaches.
described above.
(1) Dynamic Time. History Analysis With 3 (2) Dymsmic Time. History Analysis with i
Simpilfled Model: A dynamic time history y Detailed Piplag Model. In many cases it is I
analysis of a portion of a piping system may 8 necessary to calculate stresses in the ruptured i
be performed in lieu of a complete system pipe'at locations remote from the pipe whip analysis when it can be shown to be conservative by test data or by comparison +j restraint locatson. For example, the pipe in the containment penetration area must meet with a more complete system analysis. For.5 the limits of SRP 3.6.2. In these cases it is example, in those cases where pipe stressest required the ruptured piping, the pipe need not be calculated, it is acceptable to supports, and the pipe whip restraints be I
model only a portion of the piping system as a modeled in sufficient detail to reflect its simple cantilever with fixed or pinned end or dyessic characteristics. A time. history as a beam with fined ends.
analysis using the fluid forcing f=aniaan at i
the point of rupture and the fluid forcing I
When a circumferential break is postulated, fnaniaa= of each pipe segment is performed the pipe system is modeled as a simple to determine deflections, strains, loads to i
cantilever, the thrust load is applied structure and eqmpment and pipe stresses.
opposite the fixed (or pinned) end and the pipe whip restraint acts between the fixed cad b
and thrust load. It is then assumed that all 3)(4.2 PROCEDURE FOR DYNAMIC deflection of the pipe is in one pihas. As the TIME. HISTORY ANALYSIS WITH j
pipe moves a resisting bending moment in the SIMPIXIED MODEL l
pipe is created and later a restraining force L
{
at the pipe whip restraint. Pipe movement 3E'd.1.1 Medallest of Pleiam S -
i stops when the resisting moments about the
--t f /M5E/lT_
3 4,,tA 7, l 4.
]
fixed (or pinned) cad exceed the applied r os.anner/T4__,,.,....,... :: r...e j
d g
. a _ _ _ _.n _ _,m
_ m, _,.. a f, _ _ _ __. x S ' -
' - f '- - 8 " ; -
j When a longitudinal break is postulated, the
^
d t ff.,
_: --" = %
r 4
pipe system has both ends supported. To
"_f x f " - '.
. L.
T,-
analyze this case, two simplifications are 54, 04. J ! :. M :' :. 0.- r.rs=s made to aEse ths use of the castilever model l....- '::7 The pipe whip restraint is described above. First, an equivalent point modeled as two components acting in series; the mass is assemed to esist at D (See Fig 5-4) restraint itself and the structure to which the instead of pipe length DE. The inertia restraint is attached. The restraint and piping characteristics of this mass, as it rotates behave as determined by an esperimentally or about point 3, are calculated to be identical analytically determined force. deflection to those of pipe length DE, as it rotates r'
The structure Mem as a simple about point E. Second, an equivalent resisting linear rpring of representauve sprmg constant.
force is calculated (from the bending l
L.
Par===d Ase== des 3X'3 1
1 m
INSERT 3 L. 4. 2.1 a For many piping systems, all required information on their response to a postulated pipe rupture can be determined by modeling a portion of the piping system as a cantilever with either a fixed or pinned end. The fixed end model, as shown in Figure 5-2, is used for piping systems where the stiffness of the piping segment located between A and B is such that the slope of the pipe length, BD, at B, will be approximately zero. The pinned end model, as shown in Figure 5-3, is used for piping systems where the slope of the pipe length, BD, at B, is much greater than zero. The pinned end model is also used whenever it is not clear that the pipe end is fixed.
A simplified cantilever model may also be used for a postulated longitudinal break in a pipe supported at both ends, as shown in Figure S-4.
The pipe can have both ends fixed or have a pinned end at B and a fixed end at E, as shown in Figure 5-4. Section 3L.4. l(l) discusses the simplification techniques used to allow the use of a cantilever model. A fixed end is used when the rotational I
stiffness of the piping at that location is such that the slope of the pipe at that end is approximately zero. A pinned end is used when the pipe slope at that end is much greater than zero. If it is not clear whether an end is fixed or pinned, the end condition giving more conservative results should be assumed.
e t
i i
i l
0 I
s
SIMPLIFIED PIPING M ELS
{
p bce v3 th Alk"*']
~
$+
y % nes d.,
j0
. '., h 7-'
x, vfz s
o N
j.
3.
x
'\\
. i 7/3
-i ucu4umhag r c
uy, ed. awassumma a anse sque
\\
h#
'\\,
\\
~
\\
4 i
\\
J.
Cap N
s o
S/N I
t
}
a h
.j m
c.
i a
CMW O 4 V (g
g- =
gjgj e
e
=
,e e
e e
e e
o
=
se *ges, 1
I e
.n 8*
o,
)
ll m
3R WR ll
"==.
=
j
======.
w-11.
I i
k j
4 w w =m-i i
SimpWfied Piping Models-7k l
A l
l D
e L
2 l
Figure 51. Genenc Representetson of Pipe d
F(t) 1 V
~~
g
)D
{
C--
RESTRA:NT MDDELED A$
p
, pts, V
u h
}
p/
B C-.
Fogure 5 2.
Represenrecon of BwMn Ptpe & ^
@M a duwr.-4: wt A
F m
I
/
i i
F(t)
.f
{
9P i
/
D 5
C=*
MEbTMALNT i
~1 P l
_((
F(t)
.i MODELED AS v
U
/~
I& f, t
e..
FA r,gure 5.s. nepreeenter,on a e,nnes-s,< em saitL a circmfveesh'aI bren k l
o
SIMPLIFIED PIPING MODELS B
C F(t)
O E
B C
D E
F(t) qg 1I RESTRAINT STRUCTURE N
s BEFORE THRUST DURING THRUST 4 The ed et d c-be Axe) w puel.
l B
C D
8 C
D F it) - FEQUIV I I F(t) - FEQUlv
--m r
EQUlVALENT I
MASS If EQUIVALENT N
3 BEFORE THRUST DURING THHUST g
c D
6 c
b FM-FreutV F(4)-Feooio j
s
/
I 1gootoALiNT
/,
1 r MA55 p
EQQt4ALGAT i
y,,,,
irrit*
BEToRE THROST DmgG THMST 1
i Fiqua 6-4 Re.presenhtim of Pye. wah IDolk mds sprted edk a longiWI bred
7mr O
GENuclear Energy GE-NE-123-E070-0493 775 ce,er eeny, DRF NO. B21-00498 se.cse cn5725 CLASS II APRIL 1993 SAMPLE ANALYSIS FORTHE EFFECT OF POSTULATED PIPE BREAK-ABWR MAIN STEAM PIPING SL MW PREPARED BY:
H.L. Hwang y
Principal Engineer c/n/#2 APPROVED BY:
. D. P atel #
Piping Projects Manager
-w GE-NE-123-E070-0493 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE ABSTRACT iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIS 2
3.0 NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 6
4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS 10
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 13
6.0 REFERENCES
14 i
FIGURES Figure 1 ANSYS Analysis Model Figure 2 Impact Force at Pipe Whip Restraint (PWR)
(DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 3 Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 21 (DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 4 Displacement Time Histories at the Break Location (DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 5 Moment Time History at Headfitting (DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 6 Force Time Histories at Headfitting (DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 7 Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 22J (DT=.001 Sec.)
Figure 8 Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 421 (DT=.001 Sec.)
-i-s
m ELOURES (Continued)
GE-NFA23-E070-0493 Figure 9 Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 381 (DT=.001 Sec.)
f Figure 2A Impact Force at the PWR (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 3A Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 21 (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 4A Displacement Time Histories at Break Location (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 5 A Moment Time History at Head 6tting (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 6A Force Time Histories at Head 6tting (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 7A Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 223 (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure SA Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 421 (DT=.0005 Sec.)
Figure 2B 1mpact Force at the PWR (w/ Rotated Blowdown Angle)
Figure 4B Displacement Time Histories at the Break Location (w/ Rotated Blowdown Angle)
Figure SB Moment Time History at Headfitting (w/ Rotated Dlowdown Angle)
Figure 6B Force Time History at Head 6tting (w/ Rotated Blowdown Angle)-
Figure 7B Bending Moment ~ 'me Histories at Elm. 22J (w/ Rotated Blowdown Angle)
Figure 9B Force Time Histories at Elm. 22J (w/ Rotated Blowdown Angle)
Figure 2C Impact Force at the PWR (w/ displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
Figure 5C Moment Time Histories at Elm. 42J (w/ displaced elbow and break pipe orientation).
Figure 6C Force Time Histories at Elm. 42J (w/ displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
Figure 9C Bending Moment Time Histories at Elm. 381 (w/ displaced elbow and break pipe orientation) i Appendix A Piping Dynamic Analysis Engineering Computer Program Analysis Results i
Figure A-1 Force Time History for Broken Pipe Segment Figure A-2 Force Time History for 2nd Pipe Segment Figure A-3 Force Time History for 3rd Pipe Segment Figure A-4 Force Time History for 4th Pipe Segment Figure A-5 Force Time History for 5th Pipe Segment Figure A 6 Force Time History for 6th Pipe Segment Figure A-7 Force Time History for 7th Pipe Segment Figure A-8 Force Time History for 8th Pipe Segment
-ii-
g GE-NL123-E070-0493 ABSTRACT This report documents the results of a pipe break analysis performed at the request of the NRC l
for a GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) main steam line following a postulated circumferential break in the main steam line where it connects to the reactor pressure vessel nozzle. This report supports the ABWR Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and supplements Appendix "3L" of the SSAR, " Procedure for Evaluation of Postulated Ruptures in High Energy Pipes "
This pip break analysis illustrates GE's pipe break analysis methods. It also addresses the specific NRC questions regarding the GE methodology raised during the NRC audit of the SSAR. These NRC concerns are listed below:
(1) Document GE procedure for calculating the forcing functions for line segments of a ruptured pipe and for the thrust force at break location.
(2) Document GE procedure for performing the nonlinear time-history analysis of the ruptured pipe using the ANSYS computer program.
(3) Show compliance with ASME III, Equation (9) stress limit set by SRP 3.6.2 (MEB 3-1) for the piping between the containment isolation valves following a postulated pipe rupture.
~
(4) Provide justification for the 0.001 time step used by GE in the ANSYS time-history analysis.
(5) Show that GE methodology based on the simplifying assumption of no rotation of the thrust foece at the pipe break is valid for predicting stresses in the containment piping.
(6) Show the use of the GE program, PDA, provides a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraint.
-iii-i
___1 GE-NE-123-E070-0493 This report documents the following results of the sample analyses:
(1) The postulated pipe break location that results in the highest stresses inside the containment is at the connection of the main steam pipe to RPV nozzle.
(2) The ASME'III, Equation (9) stresses in the containment area of the mam steam pipe following a pipe rupture at the RPV nozzle are below the SRP 3.6.2 limit of 2.25 Sm, even with the following conservative assumptions: (a) the restraining effects of snubbers on main steam line are not considered; (b) the restraining effects of SRV branch lines are not considered; (c) the lower pressure in main steam pipe immediately following a pipe rupture is not considered.
(3) Decreasing the time step from 0.001 seconds to 0.0005 seconds has insignificant l
effect on results, proving convergence of the ANSYS solution with the GE analytical t
assumption of 0.001 seconds.
(4) The maximum pipe stress in the containment area does not increase due to rotation of the thrust force at the pipe nipture location. This confirms that the GE nonlinear analysis based on no rotation of the thrust force provides accurate results.
(5) The GE computer program, PDA, provides a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraints.
t i
)
l l
-iv-i
GDNL123-E070-0493
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an analysis performed to evaluate the effects of a postulated circumferential pipe break at the connection of the ABWR main steam pipe to the Reactor j
Pressure Vessel (RPV) nozzle on the pipe stresses between the inbond and the outboard Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV). This postulated break was chosen for analysis because this break will create the maximum stress in the pipe between the containment isolation valves, since the M.S. pipe has the largest diameter (i.e. 28") compared with SRVDL's 10" and Feedwater's 12" size.
The analysis for the postulated main steam pipe break analysis presented in this report includes forcing function calculations and the nonlinear dynamic analysis.
T The result of the analysis show that the stresses in the pipe between the containment isolation valves meet SRP 3.6.2 stress limit (2.25Sm).
4 i
6 I
l i
[
~
t l
l l
1
. = 2Q GE-NF 123-E070-0493 2.0 PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIS 2.1 Description f
i The steam flows in the main steam line from the RPV to the turbine during normal operation.
When a postulated pipe break occurs at the RPV nozzle safe end or at the first elbow down stream of the RPV nozzle, the steam flow in the main steam line suddenly reverses and flows back to the i
break location. A decompression wave starts at the break location and propagates toward the j
turbine, creating force time histories on each main steam pipe segment.
In order to calculate the force time histories on each pipe segment, a modification in the Turbine Stop Valve Closure Force (TSFOR) calculation method is used. TSFOR is an Engineering I
Computer Program (ECP) used to calculate the pipe segment force time histories due to turbine stop valve closure event. The program is described in NEDE-23789. The boundary condition of f
this program is modified to calculate the pipe segment force time histories due to the postulated pipe break of the main steam pipe at the RPV nozzle.
i Modifications to TSFOR and the procedures to calculate the force time histories are described in the following sections.
?
2.2 Generation of Main Steam Pipe Break Input Data The back flow of steam through the main steam piping can be computed by applying the break boundary condition at the main steam RPV nozzle..as shown below (Reference 1).
l i
p/p0
= (2/(K+1))"(2K/K-1) = 0.30 f
<j >/C0 = (2/(K+1)) = 0.87 l
< rho >/(rho 0) = (2/(K+1))"(2/(K-1)) = 0.40 i
- where, p = senem pressure at the break exit, psia p0 = stagnation pressure, psia
<j> = discharge velocity at the break exit, ft/sec l
C0 = sonic velocity at the stagnation condition rho = steam density at the exit, Ibm /ft"3 rho 0
= stagnation density, Ibm /ft'3 K = gas constant,1.3 for saturated steam.
! i
~
i l
GENL123-E070-0493 An executable program file, called MS-BRK, has been set up to calculate the pipe segment forces due to the postulated break. The method of analysis is the same as described in the ANS-58.2, Appendix A.
The MS-BRK program input is setup exactly the same as the TSFOR input which is described in NEDE-23789, Reference 4. The pipe break boundary condition computer input is calculated as described above. The input includes pipe inside diameter, flow rate, pressure, specific volume, segment length, the friction factor and the gas constant.
The procedure defined in this paragrcph for a main steam pipe break is not applicable for a break in the feedwater pipe. For piping systems containing water, force time histories due to a postulated pipe break are calculated using the methodologies provided in Section 6.2 and Appendix B of ANS 58.2 (Reference 2).
l 2.3 Calculation of Input Force Time Histories at the Break Location Let the length of the first pipe segment with the break be L ft. The time for the pressure wave to travel through the first pipe segment is tg = L/C, where C = sonic velocity in steam.
ti = 0.0038 seconds For t < t1 F = PA = 533,671 lbs.
~
F = C PA = 373,570 lbs.
For t _> t1 T
Where P = 1,070 psi A = 498.4 in*
CT = 0.7 The blowdown force time history shown in Figure A-1 is input at the pipe break location.
3-
4e M
GENL123-E070-0493 t
The determination of the steady state thrust coefficient, C, is dependent on the fluid and the T
friction loss terms.
fL/D = 2.5 (Based on representative values for previous BWR's CT = 0.7 (From Figure B-3 ANS 58.2 Appendix B, Reference 2)
The iL/D value includes the friction from the pipe break to the turbine, plus the friction through MSIV's and through the other three pipes from RPV. The overall fL/D is > 2.5.
2.4 Analysis Steps The following steps can be used to generate the pipe segment force time histories due to main steam pipe break at the nozzle safe-end.
- 1) Prepare the TSFOR01 input deck.
Create a PERM file to save force time histories.
- 2) Select the following file to run instead of TSFOR01 :
SS SELECT FS0027/HLH/MS-BRK-R
- 3) Down load the time histories to PC (ASCII).
- 4) Run MS-BRK-R to convert the force time histo' ries to ANSYS input format.
- 5) Prepare the ANSYS input model.
- 6) RUN ANSYS.
Details of Steps 3 through 6 are included in ANSYS Analysis Procedures.
e GE-NE-123-E070-0493 2.5 Forcing Function Calculation Results 1
i-The nodes to which the forces for each pipe segment are applied are defined in the table below.
Bend radius of elbows is not considered in segment definition when calculating segment forces.
Where elbows exist, the segment extends to the tangent intersection point. This approximation has proved valid when calculating segment forces due to other thermo-hydraulic loads such as i
turbine stop valve closure and safety relief valve discharge.
[
Seement No.
Nodes l
1st 5
2nd 12 3rd 16 2
4th 39 5th 43 6th Outside Containment
\\
7th Outside Containment j
8th Outside Containment Examples of the output plots are shown in the following figures:
'f Figure A-1 : Force time history for broken pipe segment Figure A-2 : Force time history for 2nd pipe segment Figure A-3 : Force time history for 3rd pipe segment l
Figure A-4 : Force time history for 4th pipe segment l
Figure A-5 : Force time history for 5th pipe segment Figure A-6 : Force time history for 6th pipe segment j
i Figure A-7 : Fesce time history for 7th pipe segment l
Figure A-8 : Force time history for 8th pipe segment i
e i
i f
i i
q GE-NL123-E070-0493 si 3.0 ANSYS NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 3.1 Analysis Model i
The pipe break non-linear time history analysis can be performed by ANSYS program. The piping model is shown in Figure 1.
The selection of elements and nodes is the same as for the seismic and dynamic analysis of the pipe. The main steam guide located inside the drywell, which provides only lateral restraint, in the horizontal direction and in the vertical direction, is included in the model and is modeled as two spring elements. Snubbers, seismic restraints and branch piping are excluded from the model. This model simplification is generally conservative when estimating displacements of the piping system since they would act as restraints to displacements.
In some cases a seismic support could be oriented such that following a pipe break, the restraint provided by the seismic support could result in higher piping stresses. Therefore, the engineer should first review the seismic support design to determine whether seismic supports should be included in the ANSYS analysis model.
t The selection of the input are described as follows:
Analysis : KAN=4 Plastic pipe : use STIF 20 Plastic elbow: use STIF 60 Pipe whip restraint : use STIF 39 3.2 Analysis Time Step When performing the non-linear analysis, it is necessary to show the analysis time step is adequate to result in convergence. In order to show that the analysis time step of 0.001 seconds is adequate, an analysis with time step of 0.0005 seconds has been performed. The results of the analysis are plotted in the figures listed below. Comparisons of the results between 0.001 seconds and 0.0005 seconds time step show that the differences are less than 3%. Therefore, l
time step of 0.001 seconds can be used in the analysis.
I '
N
.. m GE-NFe123-E070-0493 3.3 Analysis Results Plots of the calculated loads and displacements are provided in the figures listed below.
Figure 2: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (max impact = 670,000 lb)
Figure 3: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec. at Elm. 21, at elbow near break Figure 4: Displacement time histories. DT=0.001 sec at the break location Figure.': Moment time histories at headfitting, (Elm 42J) DT=0.001 sec.
Figure 6: Force time histories at headfitting. (Elm 42J) DT=0.001 see Figure 7: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 see at Elm 22J, before main s. team guide Figure 8: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 see at Elm 421, near headfitting Figure 9: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec. at Elm 381,1st elm after MSIV.
Figure 2A: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.0005 sec (0.7PA =373,600 lb, max impact =670,000 lb)
Figure 3A: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec.
at Elm. 2I, at elbow near break Figure 4A: Displacement time histories. DT=0.0005 sec at the break location Figure SA: Moment time histories at headfitting, (Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec. -
v L
Figure 6A:- Force time histories at headfitting. (Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec Figure 7A: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec at Elm 223. before main steam guide Figure 8A: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec at Elm 42!, near head 6tting 3.4 Discussion of Large Displacement Analyses Since the analysis was based on the ANSYS option that assumes small displacements of the piping model, it is necessary to confirm the validity of the analysis if large displacements 4
occur. The displiements from the terminal end Main Steam Break Structure (MSBS) analysis' -
(using ANSYS) results show that the largest displacements and rotations occur at the break.
These rotations and displacements of the pipe at the break cause a change in the direction of the thrust force at the break. To determine if the effects of this thrust direction change the stresses
~
in the pipe between the isolation valves, GE has performed time history analyses for both the original and displaced positions to confirm the validity of the small displacement assumption in the non-linear time history analysis results.
Two cases of displaced analysis have been performed. In Case 1, the element at the break and --
the thrust force are rotated. In Case 2, the thrust force and the section of piping between the break location and the first pipe whip restraint are rotated.
The results of the Case 1 analysis are shown in the following figures:
j Figure 29: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 4B: Displacement time histories. DT=0.001 see at the break location
'(Included rotated blowdown angle)
.j Figure 5B: Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included rotated blowdown angle) 3.
g.
I.i Figure 6B: Force time histories'at 42J (headfitting)
(Included rotated blowdown angle) h a
Figure 7B: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 see at Elm 22J.
j before main steam guide 1
i (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 9B: Bending Moment time histories. DT=.001 see at Elm 381,1st elm after MSIV (Included rotated blowdown angle).
j The results of the Case 2 analysis are shown in the following figures:
l I
Figure 2C: Impact force at t e pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation) 7 l
Figure SC: Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting) i (Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure 6C: Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation) l J
Figure 9C: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec. at Elm 381,1st elm after MSIV.
)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
The maximum stresses between the MSIV's do not increase due to the force direction change
)
as result of the IsIge displacements at the break location. This shows that the nonlinear analysis i
I based on design location is acceptable. If the results from Case 1 and Case 2 did not closely agree with the design location, an acceptable alternative would be to use the large displacement option of the ANSYS program.
g 1
i
'l 1
1 )
?
.l w
..m l.
GENL123-E070-0493 4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS 4.1 Pipe Data Pipe = 28" OD x 1.423" t I = (28'4 - 25.154^4) x 3.1416/64
= 10520 in'4 Z = 751 in 3 Assume break occurs at normal operation. T = 552* F.
Sm = 18.570 psi for SA-350-LF2 (Carbon steel)
Allowable limit
= 2.25 Sm
=41780 psi The maximum bending moment between the MSIV's will be developed about 0.075 second after the break. The decompressing wave travels at 1600 ft/sec. It has traveled a distance of 1600x0.075 = 120 ft when the maximum moment occurs. Therefore, the pressure between the MSIV at the time when the maximum bending moment is developed will be much less than normal operating pressure of 1050 psi. It is conservative to use 1050 psi to calculate the pressure stress.
Sp
= PD/4t
< 1050 x 28/(4xt.423)
= 5165 psi Weight stress, Swt
= 1074 psi Sp + Swt = 6239 psi GLNL123-E070-0493 4.2 Moment and Stress Comparisons Comparisons of the bending moments and bending stresses at the head fitting are as follows.
Results 1 =
Using normal procedure with time step 0.001 sec.
Results 2 =
Study case with time step 0.0005 sec.
Results 3 =
Study case with time step 0.001 sec.
Include rotated force angle Results 4 =
Study case with time step 0.001 sec.
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Moments and stresses at the headfittin;;:
Ma Mb Mc Mr B2 M/Z (E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi Result 1 15.3 15.0 13.3 25.2 33600 Result 2 15.0 15.0 13.3 25.1 33500 Result 3 20.5 4.5 9.0 22.8 30400 Result 4 19.9 13.0 8.0 25.0 33390 The B2 index for a taper transition, B2 = 1.0, is used at the head fitting.
This index is from NB-3600. The table above shows the value calculated from the Result 1 is slightly conservative.
l G E-NE-123-E070-0493 l
From Figure 9, moment time history plots at element 381, the first element j
after htSIV, the maximum bending are as follows:
Ele 38I hia hib hic hir B2 hi/Z (E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi Result 1 15.0 13.0 11.5 23.0 30600 Result 4 19.5 8.5 13.0 24.9 33200 This shows that the maximum stress between the isolation valves is at the headfitting for the analysis with the design configuration. The combined l
stress is as follows:
Sp + Sw + S break
= 5165 + 1074 + 33600
= 39,839 psi
[
Allowable stress = 41,780 psi Stress ratio = 39839/41780 = 0.954 o
All the stresses are within the allowable limit of 2.25 Sm.
4.3 Pipe Whip Restraint Loads as Comparison With PDA Results The maximum pipe whip restraint loads calculated are as follows:
Fieure No.
ANSYS Result 1 670,000 lb 2
ANSYS Result 2 670,000 lb 2A ANSYS Result 3 650,000 lb 2B l
ANSYS Result 4 640,000'Ib 2C PDA Result 666,727 lb The above results show that the PDA calculated consistent result with ANSYS output. The PDA analysis is shown in Appendix A.
l i
w GE-NE-123.E070-0493
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
- 1) The maximum combined stress in the pipe between the containment isolation valves is 39839 psi. This is below 2.25 Sm allowable limit (i.e.
41780 psi) as specified in SRP 3.6.2.
- 2) The maximum pipe stresses between the MSIV's do not increasc due to the force direction change as result of the displacements at the break location. This shows that the nonlinear analysis based on design location is acceptable.
- 3) Calculated pipe whip restraint load by ANSYS is 670,000 lb. The PDA calculated peak restraint load is 666.727 lb. Both results are comparable.
Eitner PDA or ANSYS program is acceptable to be used for sizing pipe j
whip restraints.
5.1 Conservatism in the Analysis Summary of conservative assumptions are as follows:
a) The main steam pipe snubbers are not considered. This is conservative because the supports reduce pipe stresses between MSIV's. The support can l
absorb energy before failure ifload is exceeded.
The branch pipes are not included in the model, which is conservative i
because the branch pipes act like restraints for the main steam pipe.
b) Pressure stress at the normal operating condition is used in the load combination. This is conservative because the pressure in the pipe will be reduced due to pipe break.
2 i
l i
...-g GE-NE-123-E070 0493
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1) Lahey, R.T. and Moody, F.J., " Thermal-Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor," American Nuclear Society,1977
- 2) ANSI /ANS-58.2-1988. " Design Basis for Protection of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants Against the Effects of Postulated Pipe Rupture."
- 3) GE Document NEDE-10813, PDA, " Pipe Dynamic Analysis User's Manual."
- 4) GE Document NEDE 23789. "TSFOR01 User's Mtnual."
14 -
oy
\\
a 8
A k..I E) T]
M te
=
w w<
=
w 54 ei
, a ** =
n Qh), -Q "
.w m g
n 46 b ')
N
=
6 4
5,0, e
a er.
(b i
ANSYS analysis model--Modes and Elements.(Element numb l)
Figure!1 I
k i
4
GENL123-E0704493 -
I ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 13:54:18
==.
POST 26
==.
ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 1
)
xt me.s
.i
-a.s 2F
=0.5
-a o
t N
\\
I I
I i
I I
o ", "
-m e
...e a
a AHWR-USA MS N02ZLE POSTULATE BREAK CURVE ' VARIABLE NAME 1'
. 2' 3
'1 POST 26-INP=
t
- Figure'2 s'. Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0. col sec (pa=373,soo Ib, max impa t.=670,000 lb)-
3
- . i t
,p
GLN&l23-E070-0493 I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:00:09
=.
POST 26 ZV
-1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5
"=a I
v-Q-
\\,,/-,
I
~j
- f J'
\\
N.
(J[
4.
i i
i.
i n
ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POSTULATE HREAK 2
3 2
5
-3 4
2 G
POST 2G-INP=
Figure 3 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at elm. 21,at elbow near break
- w..
.. ~ -.
q.
GENG123-E070 0493 '
1 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:03:25 POST 26 m.
=
ZV
-1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5 a
ZF
=0.5
,/
j'
~~,4 av l
,/
~ ~
i
/
,/
/
/
/
<s.
/
,j '
se
/
/_
/
/
/.
\\
/..,
l I-L LI I
L',
~
~*
ABWR-USA MS NO22t_E POSlut ATL BREAK' 2
3 4-
.UY 3'
4
.4-U2.
POSI~26-INP=
Figure 4-l Disp acement time' histories.'.DT=0.001 sec i
~
at the break-location
l.
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:21:15 POST 26
.. x r ZV
-1 DIST-0.6666
- 5a" *'
XF
-0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 h
.w f,
\\
.. '\\
\\
l
. wa.w
%u
<. r a..r l
l
~ " " ~
g g
_ i..
i... - l g
- i. "
....,w.=
.. w ABWR-USA MS NO22LE-POSlUIATE HREAK 2
3 42 11 3
4 42 '12 POST 26-INP=
Figure 5's' Moment time history at headfitting,.(Elm-42J)-
DT=0.001 sec.
GE-NE-12 bE0704493 -
I-ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:27:03 m.
POST 26 wm ZV
-1 DIST-0.6666 XF
=0.5
(*
YF
=0.5 2F
=0.5 X
1 x
i 2
-s I
n==
N.
e, s.,
%/,.
/
L
..\\
x
/.
/
r
~~
l
,1 -
m
' N,/
-t. emes
~/
I I
i I
i j "
...e e.
m m-
..i ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POS1UL A1E HREAK 2.
.3 42 8
3 4
42 9:
POST 26-INP=
-Figure 6 :-Force. time' histories at headtitting.
(Elm' 4 2J).
DT=0.001 sec i
r m
_____.,,4
._,.,__.._.-.s,
.__.=..,m,-
r,.
., _. ~..,....
.i.
-(
GENE-123-E070-0493.
I ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:12:15 POST 26 m.
. r.a m ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666
~~-
. = = -
XF
=0.5
/
p:Ji h.
yr
.g.5
'w ~,
,/
ZF
=H.5 p
/
\\
/
im.
.w
/
r.
.cr J
t
.. s-N,
.w 4.
.w g
g i
i...
g p
.. t g
.. w AHWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POSTULATE BREAK h
2 3
22
.11-8 3
4 22 12 1:
POSi26-INP='
r Figure 7 ' s Bending mor%_i time histories. DT=0.001 sec at;ein 22J,before main steam guide-li I:
u
I GE-NE-123-E0764493 I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:1G:59 POST 26 i
.. uu ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 g
'N i
YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5
\\,
s, c
\\
/
mr.
l
/
\\
su s as l'
/ 1 l
l
- y, g
\\
i
-4. 298E +.7 N..*
-9. (s.El *.#
i...
.= nm..i l
i g
' w a
m e, aw a.s AUWR--OSA MS NO22LE POSTULAIE BRLAK-2
.3 42 5
3 4.
42 6
- POS126-INf=
Figure 8 : Bending moment time.' histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 42I,near headfitting I
L
,,.r.
-.wi.....-
,-. ?-
,-,.J.-
-....,. _. ~. -
G E-N E-l23-EU70-0493 I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG ll l')9 /
16:54:48 POSi26
==
.a.
/V
- l DESI-8.6666 XI
-H.S YI
. 0.5
/t
-H.S I
s aw
. =a r
.w
.am.
g g
i.
l i
.=
.=
.=
'ASWR USA MS N0//lE-POSilM All HHi AK
- I 4
IN 6
l'O *.l l h I N8' '
s Figure 9 :. Bending moment time hist.ories. DT=0.001 sec.
~
- at Elm 381, 1st ela after MsIV..
4 m
m ed*
-Y A
tt 96"P-T Ne Meaf
-1w&Mh-A P
W 4
T=' - "'W-4
F T"W t-T
- F
'T 4**1*T'"w-
GEND123-E070-0493 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:14:48
==
POST 26 ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 f
XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5 2F
=0.5
-,=
-24
.aa
\\
\\
-e
\\
\\,
~
.,ggggg,
- ==
l l
1.
i.
l l
t..,
.. w.
ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POSIUI.AIE HREAK CURVE. VARIABLE NAME 1
2 3
1 n!
POST 26-INP=
I Figure 2A: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.0005 sec
.(pa=373,600 lb, max impact =670,000 lb)
[
l]
ANSYS 4.4A
.AUG 19 1992 11:18:56 POST 26 ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 YF
-0.5 ZF
=U.S
==
8 V,s L t l!
3 A
s
/
x,-
tI
\\p\\
,-n..-
, y/
\\ g,,' t/[
- ( ~ -
3
-tm '
l l
l l 7.. ".
i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULATE HREAK 2
3 2
5 3
4 2
6 POST 26-INP=
Figure 3At Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec.
at' elm.-2I.,at elbow near break i l,t
l..
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 10:28:36 POST 26
=
ZV ul DIST=0.6666
- - ~
XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5
'ZF
=U.5 1
/*
29
/.
.,4 "Y
4Ag f.
,e f
/
/
s'
.s
.a o
ss.
r f_.3 :_ - ~ ~ ;* %,:
,a
//,.
~~a e,
l
/
/a#
1
/
/-
e l
l i
i.
l l
i.._".
.e
.. e,
...s a
..r AHWR-USA MS NO22LE POSTULAll HREAK 5
6 5
UY G
7 S'
UZ POST 2G-INP=
Figure 4A: Displacement time histories. DT=0.0005 sec' at the break. location
,_.,.~,..~,..,__,.,,....m,
., -,,., -, _,...., _ ~ _,,..
. ~.,..,
GFeNE-123-E0704493 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992.
I1:30:5G
= =.
POST 26 sm r ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 x
YF
=0.5
/F
=0.5
,l aam,
-an.
i j
l u..
\\
i
. uw..i
\\
,/
y
-e. v m r r
,/
/
..e.
,/
/
/..
\\
-=.au.=
g s
P/
-s e rw.
g g_
.i l
g i....
.. w
.i AHWM-USA MS'N022LE POSlULATE BREAK 2
-3 42
.11 3
4 42 12 POST 26-INP=-
Figure 5A l Moment time' history at headfitting, (Elm'42J)
DT=0.0005 sec.
-o I
l-
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:33:41 POST 26 ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5 21-
=0.5 s
f I
/
\\
N-
/
j,,,
\\
~
\\ f ' {
- ~.,
/
1
(..-.'
\\.
/
,/
I I
I l
.e a
a a.
...r ABWH-USA MS NO22LE POSIULATE HREAK' 2
3-42 8
3
.4 42 9
POST 26-INP=
yigure 6As Force time histor'ies at headfitting. -(Elm' 42J)
DT=0.0005mec-N ls
~
1 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19.1992 l
11:25:14 POST 26 I
.. e ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666
\\.. h.
XF
=0.5
/
/*
YF
=0.5
/-
2F
=0.5 c
nr r
w
..r s\\-
r-g-
g
,in w
=
ABWR-USA ML N022LE POSTULA1E BREAK 2
.3 11 3-4 22 12' POST 26-INP=-
Figure 7At. Bending moment. time histories. ETm0.0005 sec at eim 22J,before main steam quide I
J 1
a.
I ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:28:39
-=.
POST 26
..iru.
2V
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5
.. nm
\\
\\
YF
=0.5
\\ '.,
'2F
=0.5
/
x l
~
.n-.
,. /
4 s m a*.i
/
\\
\\,
/
\\.
\\/,,
, -., /s.,
i.
i-s a.e r t'
-a r r
L
-se.an !
I
' Fut r
.I I
g g
I I
g ee -
m e. -
m e.
.. n a,
.. m nm
...r s
AHWR-USA MS N0ZZl.E POSlULATE HREAK 2
.3 42 5-3 4-42 6'-
POST 26-INP=
Figure SA Bending moment time histories. DTz0.0005 sec at elm 42I,near headfitting.
F GE-NE-123-E0704493 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:54:08 m.
POST 26 ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 I
\\
XF
=0.5 I
Yr
=0.5 ZF
-0.5 i-
-e
- M.S
-4 h
L
(...,,
N--
N s
- r=
l l
1 l
l 6..,
.e
.. n w,
. er AHWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POS~lut A1E HREAK
. CURVE VARIABLE.
NAME 1
2 3
1
-POS126-INP=
Figure 2B:' Impact-force at the pipe whip restraint.
.(pa=373,soo.lb, max impact =670,000:1b)
(Included' rotated blowdown angle)
~
GE-NE-123-E0704493 I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:59:17 POST 2G m.
- u..
ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 n+.
/
/.
YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5
,, - ~.. __ ~
,[.
~~
ss
,s.-
/
it
/
i
/
, l
- s, %.
/
_p
.., s s
.N
.,N, s
'\\
s
-4 g.
4 va
.x.s
's
'... ev s..
'* ni'
-tm.
I I
.i l
I i...
AHwR-USA MS N02ZLE POSTULATE BREAK 5
6 5
UY 6
7.
5 U2 POST 26-INP=
Figure 4B. Displacement time histories.-
at the break location (Included rotated. blowdown. angle) 4
--..L.
...,,-.....-.....m.,-.._.-
,... ~.
GE-NE-123-E070 0493 I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:56:21 POST 26 m.
ZV
=1 DIST-0.6666 XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 r
f j'
\\
/
ar
\\,
l
\\
s.,
(,n
'(g
..r.
\\
- es.s r j :-..
-a, m.
N
\\
1e.E*.0
\\
-. - i.
I.
l-L g
g i.
i l
-l
-a,
.e am ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POS1ULATE HREAK 2
'3 42-11 3
4 42 12 POST 26-INP=
Figure.5B: Moment time history at headfitting, - (Elm 42J) l l
- (Included rotated blowdown angle)'.
/,
l m...
m m.
..~..,r.
,e r.
m.,.
.,_m.
GENL123-E070-0493 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 14:01:56
==
POST 26 us ZV
-1 DIST=0.GGGG XF
=0.5 f
YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 1
j 4
e.-
<e I
- / a.ns l
< Jj
/ '\\
\\
y
/<.
u_i N
\\
s_,
T g
-~
i g
~
-e
-I I_
i I
I i.. <
.e a
.. a
- e..a.
m.
...r AHWM-USA MS N0ZZl.E POSTULATE BREAK 2
3 42.,8 3
4 42
'9 i,
POST 26-INP=
i Figure 6B: Force. time histories at'headfitting. -(Elm 42J)
(Included rotated blowdown angle).
A'
t I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 281992 til 14:03:53
[.Q POST 26 m.
W 2V
=1
[.'s DIST=0.6666
/
\\n i.
XF
=0.5
- = *
- r
/
YF
=0.5
/
2F
=0.5 p
a, r.
n, f,
~ ' \\f
..i
/ 'n u
- M
)
s._.'
N
.a u
\\
s'-
~.
-= m
.a s.,
- = =
i I
I
- i..
I l
i..
s ee
==
an e.,
an am
- a.7 a
ABWR-USA MS N02ZLE POS10 LATE BREAK Figure.7Ba'. Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at. elm 22J,before main steam guide (Included rota*.ed. blowdown angle) l
')
~.
-_.,n
.~.
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 14:06:58 POST 26 m.
me ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=0.5 Yr
=0.5 ZF
=0.5
(
{
{
b\\.
i y
mn
..s
\\.
ey,
(,
L "a
l.
I l
l ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POS1ULATE HREAK 2-3 22 8
3 4
22 9
.POSi26-INP=
Figure 983 Force time histories, at ela 22J,before main steam guide
.L (Included rotated blowdown angle)
.I n
GE-NI?-l23-1070-0493 i
ANSYS 4.4A NOV IH I ?)?)2.
7:57:H9 l'OS i 26
/V 1
DISI H.6666 XI
-H.S Yi H.S
/t
-H.S N
-spamme
-emete
-esse.
-4WMD l
i m.
f AEW;t USA MS N0//i t POSILM AIF BRIAK L
CURVE VARIASII NAMI 1
2
- 1 I
l Figure 2C: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint.-DT=0.001 sec (Included displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
.. - ~..
i GE-NE.123 E0704493 1
ANSYS 4.4A NOV IH I?)?)/
7: 5?): :15 l'OS T 26 eme ZV
-1 DISI O.6666 XI
-0.5 YI H.5
/t
-H.5 1
A..
e a
.or
-. een.w e s m.ee
+4. 3484 *e3 e,e-e ou e es e se e,
em
- es e.,
AHwR USA MS NO//lt l*05 t ui A li HMI AK 2
3 42 11 3
4 42 12 Figure SC: Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced' elbow and break pipe orientation) e m
___., - _~-_..._. -.,
- - ~ ~ ~.
e.-
..... - ~. - - -. -
GE-NE-123-E070-0493 ANSYS 4.4A NOV IH I ?)?)2 H: HS: :lH l'OS T 26 m.
/V
-1 DIS 1 0.6666 XI
-0.5 Yi O.5
/t
-H.S me.e 4*W48 l
.64PWW.
y
- tGAAS.
d ABWR-USA MS N0//li l'OS 101 All llRI AK _ ___
2 3
42 H
4 42
?)
Figure 6C: Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and break pipe orientation) l :
A
GE-NE-123-E0764493 i
ANSYS 4.4A M)V IH I ?)?)2 9:4H:H!)
IMS T 26
.m
/V
-I DIS 1 0.6666 XI
-H.S YI H.S
/t
-H.5
- '= =
I us.
ee==.w
. u.w i
..sm w
[
4 em er l
.mi.es I
'e m
- e. =
ASWR-USA MS N0//l I l'OSILM All HRFAK 2
3
'lH 5
~
- I 4
- lH 6
Figure.9C: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at Elm 381, 1st ela after MSIV.
(Included displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)-
h L
._-,.-m.
- ~
m.
- - ~.,.
, --.- i.....,
m.
._ q eq 523240.0 0.7.
0.7
.00386
.01271 13.27 91 28.
25.189
.19 110000.
402.89 22:1.65 1000:00.
4.543
.0268 1579602.
104924.
.235 8.480 36.
0606010101 GENERAL ELECTRIC CoMPAN7 NUCLEAR ENER3Y SYSTEMS DI7ISI:
t
~
APPE4 DIX A
t XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX i
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXuuuXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX l
XXX XXX
={
XXX PPPPP DCOCD AAAA XXX XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX
[
XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX i
XXX PPPPP D
D AAAAAA XXX XXX P
D D
A A
XXX XXX P
D D
A A
XXX i
XXX P
CODDD A
A XXX XXX XXX XXX
~
XXX i
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_^'i'iXiX'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX l
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYViii111111XXXXXXXXXX 6
PIPE DYNAMIC ANALYSI5 PROGRAM L
i REVI5 ION 2
2/12/ 1976 l
h PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY: LD STEINERT MARCH 1973
-[
ACMINISTERED BY:
-i STANDARD PIANT PIPING r
DESIGN CDMP. NO. 123 ETTEC*IVE LENGTH TRCM RESTRAINT CLEARANCE RESTRAINT.TO I4ADING i
(INCHES)
BREAK (TT)
DIRECTION 4.543 4.17 0 0 DEGREES PIPE BENDING PIPE ROTATICN MAX. ALICWABLE
.I STRAIN STABILITY BENDING MOMENT LIMIT ( IN/IN )
LIMIT (CEGR.)
(TT-L8S) t 1.004E-01 8.6281 4647695.
IMPACT YEIOCITY= 21.70 TT/SEC IMPACT TIME =.0240 SECONOS NO. CT MRS DETL. CT STUC.
CETL CT REST.
REL.DETL.-
TOTAL IIT*..
i CCMPOSING IN DIR. Or IN DIR. OF OF PIPE END CT PIPE E:i:
THE REST.'
THRUST (IN.)
THRUST (tN.)
IN DIR. OF TERUST ' N. i -
6
.6$43 1.1784
.0134 9.01:3
-l ai i
I t
t f
~N t
TIME AT PEAK 0ETL.'T xE T0;A*
IN DIR. OT-IN :: R. OT OYNAMIO LCAD FCR PIPE END TIMI 0F~
THRUST (LES.)
TERUST {L35.)
(SEC)
SIC AT. MPc. M07EMI::T '
654310.
654210.
.0427
.0009
.04:7 TOTAL I'tER07 ENIR07 AESO.
INEROY ABSOB.'
ENERG7-AESO. TOTA:. Ass:.
AEEO. SY BY *ME BY THE BY THE ENIR,7
- HI PIST.
S....... I BOTTOM RINGE REST. HINGE (T!-LES)-
(TT-L3S)
(TT-LES)
(FT-LES)
(FT-LES) 51826.
175:3.
217245.
460.
237 70.
ENER07 AESC.
REST.
REST.
PIPE DETL.
P:PE'OET;.
sy THE LCAD (PIAK)
ICAD (STATIC)
.AT REST.
AT *HE ERI;;.
COMP. (LBS)
. COMP. (IN.)
COMP. (IN.,
(T*-L3S)
PD1 P02
. PS1 PS2 XR1 XR2 XP1 x;
0, 654310.
O.
534107.
C.
6.38
.00
.9.31 Vif D3 kSS kkk *M x
rn
- IXCEPT TOR THE RESTRAIN
- LCAD COMPCNENTS PD1 AND PC2, ALL VARIABLIS EELOW ARE IN A :::RIO* 0N PARALI.EL.TO THE BLCWDCWN TCRCE. ***-
TIME P DIS.
'P VEL.
P ACC RE!. DIS.
TTL DIS.
RES.ICAD 'RES.LCAO 3 *.W:E AT RIS.
AT R.
AT R.
CF END OF END CCMP.PD1 COMP.P::
TORCI '
SIC IN.
F*/SEC TT/SEC2 IN. -
.(IN.)
(LBS.)
(LBS.)
(1.35. )
.00E3 1.14 14.83 661.9
.00 1.66.
O.
O.
.366:58.
.0145 2.27 18.05 485.0
.00-3.31 0.
-O.
366:53.
.0195 3.41 20.16 380.9
.00 4.97 0.
0.
'56:58.
.0240: 4.54 21.70 309.2
.00 6.62-0.
.0:56 4.95 20.96
.00 7.21 328499..
O.
366:53.
O.
366258.
.0267 5.22 19.50
.00 7.61 442092.
D.
366:55.
.3279 5.49 17.48
.00 8.01' 514300.
O.
366:58.
.0293 5.76 14.84
.00 8.41 567456.
O.
366268.
.0311 6.04 11.23
- e****
.00 8.80 609844.
O.
366:68.
.0339 6.31 5.02
.00
.9.20.
645311.
C.
366:58.
i
N 3 - (a A P l
d I
/
gg g, f g 2.3* stnu Gur t.ews;w tb.iS9 " O D 0
P %f R.
l t cA D 4
LL S )
F = co +1z 9 8
- LW i
F = 1574602. I
+-4,543'k e e, o tG t
- F*4 8 8 7E C78 0N. C * *d )
BR oir.e,a r PE po t t L E. ( I g g,g3,q,3 o]
(L S) a b5 f'e-- _ T
$35, CI
+
fiRucTUAE q,g F T 3 73, 5 o
.f F = so' f
'3 21 "
o it P l? E.
Apis
- IIW N o,p o 3,
$ g e, v.mr us c)
. i r E. WS 14 MT' / F T 0.041 SEC 40s.F9 L8/PT
+
I
'i Figure A-1 : Force time history for broken pipe segment
"" *N3 a
TSF-MSR BRK MRT 12. 1992 i
i i
i 100
, c l.
ly 50-m' O
Zg 0-T a
O.
I F-I _
p =6 m
O 5 -100.-
.O
-Q-Ltl LJ tro -150-
. u.
Figure A-2':-Force time' history for 2nd'plPe segment 1
-200-
"r r
r r
r i - " --
0 100
~ 200 300 ygo
' 00 600
- /00 T -* (5% i
--THOUSANDTHS
- 0lo' iP"",!!l%lR'jk
.PL~
2.'
. ~ -
~.. _ -...,.. - - _.. _. _. _... _ _.
Y O
l')
v TSF-MSR BHh
" " ** *3 Mlli lJ. l ir.L '
I
1----
L_
10 --
Q 0-en OZcr en Dn I
i -
(n O$._
O a_
m to U
(T~o
- 11 0 -
t1-Figure A-3 : Force time history for 3rd pipe segment i i
i i
i r
r--
0 100 200 300 1100 500 000 700 3.m ( m *
- THOUSANDTHS
" Uj d l 7 $ lE I IIII,'l" i
GE-NE.123-E070-0493 TSF-MSfl Utih MHf 12. 19T i
i 1
i J
__ _._ __. L -
_._ L_
l 1
0-,
to O
Z CE CDa
_yo -
o I
t-4
~.-
<n O
Z D
O (L
m ttiu -120-ct i
o LL.
Figure A-4 : Force time history for 4th pipe segment l
-160-T T-
- i r - ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
i~~
' - ~ ~ ~ ~
~1
- ~ ~ ~ ~
O 100
/UU 5t10 1100
' 'UU t300
'/ 011 Mig l,
A tt.ilAlt) **'tWilS/lN
,,mt i so 3
- THOUSANDlHS io o i
' o "* " s' ' "
PL 4
3
n Q
(
ISF-Mt,0 UHh mu23mm3 40-
L--
Mil t 1. ', l 'f. i. '
---'------J--------
20--
,m
- )
0- m
]
~
i t,
I i-I -
.o
,s
- f
-q o -
r3 si.
oi
)
'i i._ -
Figure A-5 : Force time history for 5th pipe segment
) i r --
r ---
r nr r
i 0
100 200 300 1100 f,00 600 700 lawt (Set )
-.I tiOU ND TH..a a..,,,
.......ii,-4..inseen ira i, i.. > io aureirseau i
?
TSF-MSR UHh GE-NFe123-E070-0493
'2' ' "f_
80-i i
i i
i tio -
to O
Z g
0-q o
O I
F-1 l10-Ul L _^)
5 o O_
m I a. I LJ (Co -120-Lt.
Figure A-6 : Force time history for 6th pipe segment
-lGU-
--- r
-- r - - -- - - - -
I -
r -- --- - - ' r
'l I
U IUU
. t iu juo quo
!,0U UUU
~/un ht t wo
-- THOU';ANOTil's "LUu
,'.??.':ib'DlE'll0
[
et. e
V
(=.
m Tcf'-MSR lum Mais IJ. l a rr 100-1 1
1-L- -
50-is.i 0
~
.o
)
(p I-i.-
1 '
- e. fl r3 5 -100-F. 3
'.h it)
.a
.rr.5 - 15n -
i t.
Figure A-7 : Force time history for 7th pipe segment
-200 i
i T
i-i i
r 0
100 200 300 t100 500 600 700
.., s
, o.. oi
- miisne, i
m~t i su i
- IHOUSANDTHS is o r s.un o Smirum A
II
'{ CJ -M'3fl (3hK GEN &l234040493 Mil t i2 I < r s.' '
00-
~~~'--~~ ~ ~~~~~~ '-
~ ~ ~ ~ * ~
50-
~
v>
ct 0-f on OoI V--
I {
~
v) a 5 -100 -
~
o Ltl U
[o -150-LL-Figure A-B : Force time history for 8th pipe segment
-200-i i
r r
--~T
~ l- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
0 100 200 JUI) 400
' 00 600 70tl
- w., s
,n.mio-4.nsnu T..t (sui
- THOUSFINOTH5 uxo
<s 10
- "5"
j PL e
g
9 GE Nuclear Energy 3
c+s
.w 26 May)( 1993 Docket No. STN 52-001 Chet Poslusny, Senior Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Subject:
Submittal Supporting Accelerated ABWR Review Schedule - Sample P@)e Break Analysis Report and Appendix 3L}Jodification (cspb coeJ
Dear Chet:
Ma t+'
-f!T..J.i.i f
4o Enclosed are/SSAR markups of new Appendix 3L angthe report GE-NE-123-E070-0493
" Sample Analysis for the Effect of Postulated Pipe Break ABWR Main Steam Piping". :Fhe--R
-AyymdML markup: ad@rzF"C wuuuwu.-t Please provide a copy of this transmittal to Shou Hou.
[
r<* "Q s w mg S m.cerely, 19 I9U Fw$
1
- L l e34o V -
Jack Fox Advanced Reactor Programs cc: Maryann Herzog (GE)
Norman Fletcher (DOE)
JF9.* Ife